Efficacy of Local Peace Building Structures, Mechanisms and Practices: A Comparative analysis of Kenya and Rwanda

The term peace building entered the international lexicon in 1992 when UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali defined it in an Agenda for Peace “action to identify and support structures which tend to strengthen and solidify peace to avoid a relapse into conflict.†Since then, peace building has become a catchall concept, encompassing multiple (and at times contradictory) perspectives and agendas. Studies on peacebuilding detailing their successes and limitations are abundant. Indications of substantial improvements have been made over the years, however, most scholars note that there are still considerable gaps in the development of concepts, policies and practice. Currently, peacebuilding efforts, actors, and coordination in most countries are mixed. There are various multi-stakeholder peacebuilding efforts coordinated by different groups with varying levels of membership, leadership, effectiveness, and impact. There are also varying degrees of trust, suspicion, and often competition for resources amongst the various networks and groups. This paper comparatively seeks to interrogate the practicability and efficacy of local peacebuilding practices, mechanisms as opposed to the formal negotiating table between Kenya and Rwanda. It problematizes the application of western liberal peace models at grassroots level. The aim is to illustrate specific participatory local peace building mechanisms with more attention on the role and efficacy of community led peace building within post-conflict communities